In Absentia trials are illegal for anything worse than a misdemeanor, and even for misdemeanors it's shaky. The only situations in which a defendant does not have to be present is if he voluntarily leaves during the trial (and even then, he has to be present for the next stage of the trial) or if he is so disruptive of the trial proceedings the judge throws him out. On top of that, capital trials are sometimes taken to be excepted even from these rules.

People are killed without due process all the time. Criminals, crimes of passion(eye roll), murders, acts of defense, accidents, acts of terror and such). I know Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen but in his instance and with people like him, I feel that being an open and admitted enemy of the US revokes his rights as an American and he -should- be treated as a terrorist and get no rights at all. I would gladly accept that exception to the legal process and I still feel it was the right and just thing to do, to kill him.

Now before some people here go apeshit, let me state that it should only be for people/citizens, who have admitted, by acts, words and deeds, they are enemies of the US and opposed to it by any means. Those people should, I believe, have their citizenship revokes and be treated like the terrorists they are.

Is that hard? Yes, but with the enemies we're fighting, this needs to be looked at and we cannot afford to give them full rights. Look at how long the trial lasted for the sheik that bombed the World Trade Towers in the early '90's.

People are killed without due process all the time. Criminals, crimes of passion(eye roll), murders, acts of defense, accidents, acts of terror and such). I know Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen but in his instance and with people like him, I feel that being an open and admitted enemy of the US revokes his rights as an American and he -should- be treated as a terrorist and get no rights at all. I would gladly accept that exception to the legal process and I still feel it was the right and just thing to do, to kill him.

Now before some people here go apeshit, let me state that it should only be for people/citizens, who have admitted, by acts, words and deeds, they are enemies of the US and opposed to it by any means. Those people should, I believe, have their citizenship revokes and be treated like the terrorists they are.

Is that hard? Yes, but with the enemies we're fighting, this needs to be looked at and we cannot afford to give them full rights. Look at how long the trial lasted for the sheik that bombed the World Trade Towers in the early '90's.

So it's okay to go 'He's a bad guy, so we're gonna kill him'?

Sorry. Due Process for us all. Anything less and you're leaving yourself open to being a victim.

People are killed without due process all the time. Criminals, crimes of passion(eye roll), murders, acts of defense, accidents, acts of terror and such). I know Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen but in his instance and with people like him, I feel that being an open and admitted enemy of the US revokes his rights as an American and he -should- be treated as a terrorist and get no rights at all. I would gladly accept that exception to the legal process and I still feel it was the right and just thing to do, to kill him.

Now before some people here go apeshit, let me state that it should only be for people/citizens, who have admitted, by acts, words and deeds, they are enemies of the US and opposed to it by any means. Those people should, I believe, have their citizenship revokes and be treated like the terrorists they are.

Is that hard? Yes, but with the enemies we're fighting, this needs to be looked at and we cannot afford to give them full rights. Look at how long the trial lasted for the sheik that bombed the World Trade Towers in the early '90's.

The problem here is that if the rights of citizenship don't apply to ALL citizens, then there is nothing to make the gov't apply them to anyone. Either your citizenship comes with rights or it doesn't. If it does then those rights belong to all of us. If they can just arbitrarily be stripped away then they don't really belong to anyone and are no longer rights but simply illusions.

Alright am I missing something. Are we not at war with such extreme terrorist groups as Al-Qaeda. Was he not a know member of that organization. So would that not make him a enemy combatant. Much as those dying in Afghanistan now and other parts of the world. I am no hard right However I think it is fallacy to even consider he lost his due rights. So I feel this has not jeopardize the due process of American citizens.

So if the US military used drones to take out a know enemy. Who happen to be a traitor that defected to the other side in this war. Then so be it. It is better then losing one or more of our own men in trying to capture someone in what is basically an engagement as part of an on going war.

Sorry. Due Process for us all. Anything less and you're leaving yourself open to being a victim.

In instances like this, I see nothing wrong with them having him killed because he was a terrorist. If he is actively aiding and helping the enemy, there should be no special efforts made to take him alive. He should be treated exactly like that he is. An enemy. He only gets due process of they'd caught him in the US. Outside of that, he's an enemy and treated the same.

The problem here is that if the rights of citizenship don't apply to ALL citizens, then there is nothing to make the gov't apply them to anyone. Either your citizenship comes with rights or it doesn't. If it does then those rights belong to all of us. If they can just arbitrarily be stripped away then they don't really belong to anyone and are no longer rights but simply illusions.

So? He's an enemy! A terrorist. I don't give a damn who's citizen he was. If he is aiding and supporting terrorists and is an active member of their organization, he's treated as such. Basically, there should have been no special effort to avoid killing him just because of 'due process' complaints. If he is where is he, he knows the risk as well as any soldier, combatant and non-combatant. Due process doesn't exist on a battlefield.

They had a chance at him and took him out. Kudos to them. Or should the government have let that chance pass by because his 'rights' were violated? I'm sorry, but that sort of thinking is foolish in war. You take the chances when you get them and don't worry about things like rights.

What if Bin Ladin has been a US citizen, would the fact he was killed have been wrong?

* I'm not trying to be snarky or sarcastic, I'm just trying to understand why they should have given him his due rights and pass up this chance to kill a very effective Al-Qaeda recruiter.)

So, you're saying Zak.. because a person has a differing opinion than you that it's okay to declare it right to deny him rights due him?

That arguement would make the eco-terrorists just as vulnerable to premptive action. Or.. let's see. Anyone who opposed the status quo. No, small steps in curtailing a citizen's rights hurt us all.

That was why civil rights groups defend folks like the Klan. If you don't stand up for the rights of someone who is morally wrong, you're setting yourself up for problems when it's your turn to oppose the status quo. People have rights as citizens. You do NOT casually and out of hand discard them.

By doing so you weaken all our rights.

I swore to uphold and to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Point me to the point in the constitution where it says 'except when it's more expedient to the government.'

So, you're saying Zak.. because a person has a differing opinion than you that it's okay to declare it right to deny him rights due him?

No I'm not. I am saying it was alright in this situation. It's a fairly narrow set of circumstances here.

Quote

That arguement would make the eco-terrorists just as vulnerable to premptive action. Or.. let's see. Anyone who opposed the status quo. No, small steps in curtailing a citizen's rights hurt us all.

That was why civil rights groups defend folks like the Klan. If you don't stand up for the rights of someone who is morally wrong, you're setting yourself up for problems when it's your turn to oppose the status quo. People have rights as citizens. You do NOT casually and out of hand discard them.

By doing so you weaken all our rights.

As far as I know, no eco-terrorist group is dedicated to the destruction of the US government, people and way of life and is willing to kill as many people as it has to to do that by any means necessary. Terrorists, like the Islamists, are willing to do exactly that. As often as they can. The more casualties the better in their eyes.

Quote

swore to uphold and to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Point me to the point in the constitution where it says 'except when it's more expedient to the government.'

Doing it the RIGHT way shouldn't be easy.

So you're saying that if you were on the battlefield and had a terrorist in your sights that you knew was an American citizen, you would not shoot him? What if you knew you had one chance to nail him? Would you let that pass by because his rights and die process wasn't followed? Or just pop the bastard off?

On the battlefield, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not exist and do not apply. Never have and I hope they never will. There's a place there for rules of engagement and war, but not for constitutional rights.

The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki was a battlefield decision and it had to be made right then. Not in 60 minutes or a week's time, but right then. There wasn't time to debate and weight his rights. They saw the chance and took it.

So you're saying that if you were on the battlefield and had a terrorist in your sights that you knew was an American citizen, you would not shoot him? What if you knew you had one chance to nail him? Would you let that pass by because his rights and die process wasn't followed? Or just pop the bastard off?

On the battlefield, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not exist and do not apply. Never have and I hope they never will. There's a place there for rules of engagement and war, but not for constitutional rights.

The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki was a battlefield decision and it had to be made right then. Not in 60 minutes or a week's time, but right then. There wasn't time to debate and weight his rights. They saw the chance and took it.

No.. it was not. By declaring him a target like that.. it wasn't an encounter on a battlefield. It was a hunt. There is a different.

Am I sadden with his passing. No. He is better off for all dead.

That being said, I feel that saying 'We're going to kill him' is putting forth a dangerous precedent.

While in Yeman, he was imprisoned for 18 months. One argument here is that the drone strike was undertaken because he couldn't be captured, maybe, maybe we did not want to capture him. Also note that his 16 year old son, also an American citizen was killed in a separate drone attack. That one was not so problematic because he was not the target, but was collateral damage.

While I shed no tears for him as an avowed enemy of the US, even though his crime seems to be incitement, his potential for doing harm was great, according to the government. I just have serious reservations about allowing the CIA to target him. This was after all an assassination, not a battlefield engagement.

No.. it was not. By declaring him a target like that.. it wasn't an encounter on a battlefield. It was a hunt. There is a different.

Am I sadden with his passing. No. He is better off for all dead.

That being said, I feel that saying 'We're going to kill him' is putting forth a dangerous precedent.

We will have to agree to disagree there then.

I feel it was completely justified. It's not worth the effort on men, money and material to try and capture someone like that and I think it was a battlefield decision. It was a hunt as all battlefields are. They were searching for him, found him and took the limited opportunity they had to take him out.

It doesn't set any precedent that I can see. We've assassinated people before. This certainly wasn't any different and was a lot more justified than most probably were. Constitutional rights and Miranda rights do not exist on the battlefield. Treating him like a criminal is stupid. He's an enemy and should be treated like that first and foremost. Look at how many in this country wanted to deal with the prisoners at GitMo. They wanted them to be put on trial in US civilian courts... And those prisoners aren't even US citizens, yet they wanted to basically give them the rights of citizens.

I would like to know though what your answer is to the question I asked;

Quote

So you're saying that if you were on the battlefield and had a terrorist in your sights that you knew was an American citizen, you would not shoot him? What if you knew you had one chance to nail him? Would you let that pass by because his rights and die process wasn't followed? Or just pop the bastard off?

An encounter on teh battlefield isnt' the same as declaring openly outside the field of battle that we're going to do our best to kill him. And I have no reservations with his death. Simply that more due process should have been done.

This is a violation of a major American law. Regardless of whether the man declared himself to be an enemy or not does not give the government the right to violate the restrictions it is forced to observe in the case of American citizens.

It sets a very dangerous precedent, one that can NOT be overlooked because the President is popular with some groups.

I understand the reasoning or thought process of it could be a dangerous precedent. However, I believe that it is being carried to the extreme. The United States along Great Britain with Nato and others been in a Global war on terrorism. Most notable of those terrorist groups Al-Qaeda.

The reasoning I am seeing is he is an American citizen and every through he has in all other terms defected and joined the other side. He should be given due process. By that reasoning alone. The civil war was one big atrocity of this. As due process all those Johnny Rebs should have had there day in court. An not slaughtered at Bull Run, Gettysburg and other notable Civil war battles.

That is how I am seeing the counter side of the argument to what Zakharra is seeing. As I see it as nothing more then a minor footnote in history of a delusional misguided man that made his choice with no other major ramifications then it made the world safer.

The reasoning I am seeing is he is an American citizen and every through he has in all other terms defected and joined the other side. He should be given due process.

There is precedent to say as such.

Americans of German descent and working for the Nazis were landed in New York (Long Island, iirc) and were caught in their attempt to spy on the US.

They were TRIED as enemy combatants. As in, they were given due process. al Awlaki was not given due process, as is required by US Law. In other words, the government broke the law, and should be held to account for that.

There is no other way about it. The law was broken by the government. The Patriot Act or whatever is not allowed to circumvent the restrictions placed on the government through the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Americans of German descent and working for the Nazis were landed in New York (Long Island, iirc) and were caught in their attempt to spy on the US.

They were TRIED as enemy combatants. As in, they were given due process. al Awlaki was not given due process, as is required by US Law. In other words, the government broke the law, and should be held to account for that.

There is no other way about it. The law was broken by the government. The Patriot Act or whatever is not allowed to circumvent the restrictions placed on the government through the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Period.

If your talking about Americans as spies for Nazi's are you meaning Erich Gimpel and William Colepaugh who landed in Maine. An really of no consequences as William Colepaugh turned himself in and Erich. Both were sentence to hang. But Roosevelt died their execution commuted to life sentences by Truman. Both paroled so neither served life.

Anyways that was here on American soil. I would agree if Anwar had been here, then yes he deserves due process. I sure would be screaming bloody hell of using a drone on an American citizen. But he was not here, he was in a state that has been marked as hot state for terrorist activities so in real essences a war zone. In this new age of a different type of war. An finally he was a defector that had joined the other side in a war that is totally a different animal then the world has seen before. Simply because of advances in technology it has made the theater of this war anywhere on the planet.

Americans of German descent and working for the Nazis were landed in New York (Long Island, iirc) and were caught in their attempt to spy on the US.

They were TRIED as enemy combatants. As in, they were given due process. al Awlaki was not given due process, as is required by US Law. In other words, the government broke the law, and should be held to account for that.

There is no other way about it. The law was broken by the government. The Patriot Act or whatever is not allowed to circumvent the restrictions placed on the government through the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Period.

Terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention, despite the actions of some idiots (and yes, the Geneva convention is clear on what 'rights' terrorists get when captured). Pretty much none. Certainly not the same as soldiers get when captured and yet there were a lot of people who wanted extend to the terrorists in GitMo all of the rights of US citizens.

You let the enemy set the rules of conflict, you will never win. They will get what they want. An America that they can point to and call 'evil'.

I vehemently disagree with you Callie. In every single war the US has fought, it is fought at the level of the enemy. Every single war. In the Civil War, we went beyond it and burned the South to the ground in a lot of places(Sheman's march to Georgia). The Spanish-American war, we crushed the Spanish. In WWI and WWII, we decried the methods the Germans used, yet by the war's end, we were doing the exact same thing they were but on a far grander scale.

If you're not willing to get down to the enemy's level and fight him there, you will lose. It's what happens after the war that shows what sort of nation/people you are. If you are able to step away and try to stand back up, then you've proven yourself better than the enemy. But I believe firmly that unless you fight the enemy as he does you (more or less), you will lose because he's willing to do things you are not willing to do to defend yourself.

hmmm...this does present a moral quandry and this is actually unprecidented.a better analogy would be the few americans of german decent that went over to Nazi germany and fought against us in the forests of europe in the last days of the regime, they never made it back to the us for trial. it was documented that american and british troops shot them as war criminals rather than capture them, the men who were caught doing this were put on trial but nothing much came of the trials, they seemed half hearted and the discovery of holocaust camps just completely overshadowed things in light of what the nazi's did these few incidents didn't seem worth presuing by the government.

unoffically the army treated american born nazi troops in the same leauge as the french facists who fought on after the allies liberated france, they were nazi troops that just happened to speak a diffrent language and the incidents were buried.

Anwar if I remember the reports right, was not the target of the drone attack, it was some other terrorist leader, can't quite conjure up his name, kinda buried by media coverage after Anwar was killed. we targeted his convoy and blew it up with a drone, Anwar was in the car behind him and died as well, along with some other terrorist leaders.

It is ironic if he was just collateral damage. Thank you for reminding me of that. I do believe he wasn't the actual target, but just happened to be there when the drone nailed the convoy. If that's true, I guess any legal considerations are null and void and can be dismissed in Anwar's case.

The 40-year-old al-Awlaki had been in the U.S. crosshairs since his killing was approved by President Obama in April 2010 -- making him the first American placed on the CIA "kill or capture" list. At least twice, airstrikes were called in on locations in Yemen where al-Awlaki was suspected of being, but he wasn't harmed. In May, U.S. forces were able to track his truck but were unable to take him out.

he was certanly on the capture or kill list, but I don't think he was the target in the attack, they knew it was an important convoy, and the yemini government basicly painted the marker for us to blow it up.he wasn't the target, the convoy was... that he was killed, and on the capture or kill list, makes a diffrence.still this is a good debate to have, it prevents us from going down that slippery slope into killing our own people for "security reasons" I'm not so worried that this silver tounged bastard had a US birth certificate and is dead by military hands, I'd be worried if this action passed without debate over his citizanship and outcry over his killing Via drone instead of trial.the fact that people spoke out when this happened makes me feel safer actually, but what's done is done, we can't just un-kill him and put him on trial, it's about how we deal with what happened.and I think we're safe from government sanctioned kill orders.

come to think of it, we didn't have a procedure for this, and I hope we never do so we don't develop an "it's okay to assasanate fellow americans if..." policy. the outcry makes me sleep safer at night